Todd Bersnoozi wrote:If there is a strike, what happens to players who have like 1 year left on their deals? Burr and Edler come to mind. If this whole season is lost, will Burr and Edler automatically become UFAs in the 13-14 season?

It will all be dealt with in the new CBA in how grandfather in existing contracts, what happens to those guys who might become UFAs etc.

I have only one interest in the NHL right now, and if there's a strike/lockout/pissing-match - I'll be missing the pre-season game in Kansas City on October 6. Hopefully the children will learn to share their toys by then.

Madcombinepilot wrote:on the bright side, there is only 2 weeks untill playstation hockey season begins...

I stopped looking around; are there any good hockey games on the PC these days? EA Sports NHL series were great, got terrible, and then stopped being released for the PC. There might have been a couple of years where Sega marketed a game, then... nothing.

-offer taken as is-no revenue growth over the term of the deal-using a "effective" share of HRR = share offereed - 3% to account for changes in HRR (which IMO are logical and understandable)-average player salary calculated based on 700 players

Really I don't really believe this even an honest worst case scenario for the PA as I don't think it's likely revenue will stay flat over the term of the deal. It's a worst worst worst worst worst case scenario. And it doesn't even look bad! (keep in mind the player ave salary would include the beneifts etc that currently get put into the players share).

So what could happen if the players sat down and negotiated on that offer?

I call this a likely scenario:-PA negotiates the %age numbers up a touch realising the numbers above are a good and fair starting point-PA negotiated the changes to HRR and gets an increased share of playoff revenues, maybe relocation and expansion fees. Effectively they move the "3%" reduction for the change in definition to ~1.5%.-revenue grows at 5% year on year. I could have use the 7% number the PA used to try to make their offer look like something it wasn't but I'm taking a more moderate approach.

Under this likely scenario the players would end up taking an immediate reduction of about 5%. Not that much and more than fair. Yes it increases escrow holding somewhat but if revenuees outpace 5% they will get most of that increased escrow withholdings back. If, for example, NHL revenue increase by 10% the first year the players have no drop in total salary pool compared to this past year which is what Fehr said they want. They can even negotiate in some potential percentage escalators when revenues reach a certain point (say at $4 bill the 51% moves to 52%).A 5% reduction in salary that will be smaller than the lost money if the players miss a quarter of the season.

Now under this system they can then start to discuss how to do revenue sharing. I still think my idea I proposed way back when is workable. A luxury tax under a linked hard cap system. For the sake of argument take the ceiling as $60 mil, the midpoint at $50 mil and floor at $40 mil (these are determined by calculation based on the revenues). For every dollar a team spends above the midpoint they pay a 1:1 luxury tax which goes into the revenue sharing pool (or perhaps for the first $5 mil over the midpoint it's 1:1 and 2:1 after that...structure it whichever way). BUt you don't get to have those discussions until the fundamental system of players share is determined....linked or not.

I fail to see why the players decided to walk away from negotiating on what the league offered which is indeed a fair starting point. Revenue sharing is the argument the PA are using along with rollbacks/increased escrow but the reality is they walked away because they don't want to be linked to HRR. They can get a fair and reasonable deal under the framework the NHL offered with nothing more than negotiation. And given the NHL I think put forth something that is pretty darn reasonable as a starting point to negotiation this week I don't expect they will do much more to convince the players to come back to the table.

tantalum wrote:Just running some numbers on the last proposal from the owners.

Worst case scenario for PA:

-offer taken as is-no revenue growth over the term of the deal-using a "effective" share of HRR = share offereed - 3% to account for changes in HRR (which IMO are logical and understandable)-average player salary calculated based on 700 players

Really I don't really believe this even an honest worst case scenario for the PA as I don't think it's likely revenue will stay flat over the term of the deal. It's a worst worst worst worst worst case scenario. And it doesn't even look bad! (keep in mind the player ave salary would include the beneifts etc that currently get put into the players share).

So what could happen if the players sat down and negotiated on that offer?

I call this a likely scenario:-PA negotiates the %age numbers up a touch realising the numbers above are a good and fair starting point-PA negotiated the changes to HRR and gets an increased share of playoff revenues, maybe relocation and expansion fees. Effectively they move the "3%" reduction for the change in definition to ~1.5%.-revenue grows at 5% year on year. I could have use the 7% number the PA used to try to make their offer look like something it wasn't but I'm taking a more moderate approach.

Under this likely scenario the players would end up taking an immediate reduction of about 5%. Not that much and more than fair. Yes it increases escrow holding somewhat but if revenuees outpace 5% they will get most of that increased escrow withholdings back. If, for example, NHL revenue increase by 10% the first year the players have no drop in total salary pool compared to this past year which is what Fehr said they want. They can even negotiate in some potential percentage escalators when revenues reach a certain point (say at $4 bill the 51% moves to 52%).A 5% reduction in salary that will be smaller than the lost money if the players miss a quarter of the season.

Now under this system they can then start to discuss how to do revenue sharing. I still think my idea I proposed way back when is workable. A luxury tax under a linked hard cap system. For the sake of argument take the ceiling as $60 mil, the midpoint at $50 mil and floor at $40 mil (these are determined by calculation based on the revenues). For every dollar a team spends above the midpoint they pay a 1:1 luxury tax which goes into the revenue sharing pool (or perhaps for the first $5 mil over the midpoint it's 1:1 and 2:1 after that...structure it whichever way). BUt you don't get to have those discussions until the fundamental system of players share is determined....linked or not.

I fail to see why the players decided to walk away from negotiating on what the league offered which is indeed a fair starting point. Revenue sharing is the argument the PA are using along with rollbacks/increased escrow but the reality is they walked away because they don't want to be linked to HRR. They can get a fair and reasonable deal under the framework the NHL offered with nothing more than negotiation. And given the NHL I think put forth something that is pretty darn reasonable as a starting point to negotiation this week I don't expect they will do much more to convince the players to come back to the table.

personally until the league includes revenue sharing amongst themselves as a sign of good faith that they are truly interested in the welfare of the entire league, teams, fans and players instead of trying to save the bottom teams on the backs of the players they can shred any proposal over their cornflakes and tuck right in. why would any sane negotiator accept anything Bettman wants, anyone can see where this is going and what the next CBA will look like if they accepted anything like this proposal now.The worst thing the players ever did was accept the salary cap last time. You and I gotta pay 300 bucks a tickets to watch Canucks and the team can't keep Luongo and Schneider and we can't sign Doan or we lose Erhoff because of a salary cap that keeps teams in places nobody gives a fuck about?if it was up to me we would be seeing an honest to god strike, an alternate players league, and a mass exodus to Europe and the NHL can go fuck itself until it comes to the table with only one agenda. -save the game for the fans

Hey lucky for you the NHL has been quite vocal that revenue sharing is on the table!

The players are welcome to run their own league. That option has always been available to them. Problem is the economics just aren't attractive with how much they want to pay themselves. They are also welcome to go over the Europe and make low 6 figures instead of the 7 figures the NHL is offering up.

tantalum wrote:Hey lucky for you the NHL has been quite vocal that revenue sharing is on the table!

The players are welcome to run their own league. That option has always been available to them. Problem is the economics just aren't attractive with how much they want to pay themselves. They are also welcome to go over the Europe and make low 6 figures instead of the 7 figures the NHL is offering up.

Good post Tant, and you're right the players really don't lose that much in real dollars over the 6 years they just don't see anywhere near as much salary growth.

That said, their current position is totally understandable.

I am absolutely convinced that the players goal in these negotiations is to either remove linkage (escrow) or hold the line on 57%. Anything other then that will be seen as a loss and show that the union is still weak.

It isn't surprising that they walked away from negotiations, there isn't anywhere for them to go.

Fehr is doing the right thing. There is no point in changing his position on September 1'st, as there is no reason to do so. He should sit tight until the players actually have to give something up (their pay checks) and gauge the players to see how much stomach they have to hold out.

tantalum wrote:Hey lucky for you the NHL has been quite vocal that revenue sharing is on the table!

The players are welcome to run their own league. That option has always been available to them. Problem is the economics just aren't attractive with how much they want to pay themselves. They are also welcome to go over the Europe and make low 6 figures instead of the 7 figures the NHL is offering up.

"The league is pushing for a longer-term agreement while the union favours a short one. Bettman also remains steadfast about the fact they must settle the financial framework before other topics are tackled. However, Fehr requested Friday that talks continue on secondary issues even with the main discussion now on hiatus."...

...The union is also pushing for greater revenue sharing to help out less financially sound teams — an issue Bettman called a "distraction" because he believes the sides aren't far apart on it." [TSN]

you can see the strategy from the NHL's point of view, they want the reduction of the player's share to drop to 46%, they want linkage to remain, they want the salary cap to be reduced and they will then talk about revenue sharing...

only when they get what they want they will reverse their position on revenue sharing stating it wont work and by then with the CBA 99% negotiated it will be almost impossible for the PA to do nought but sign and take another 6 years of an ass raping while Wirtz, Jacobs, MLSE, and MSG continue to post record profits and even the bottom feeder's real values continue to grow

ukcanuck wrote:only when they get what they want they will reverse their position on revenue sharing stating it wont work and by then with the CBA 99% negotiated it will be almost impossible for the PA to do nought but sign and take another 6 years of an ass raping while Wirtz, Jacobs, MLSE, and MSG continue to post record profits and even the bottom feeder's real values continue to grow

Revenue sharing is simply not a central issue for the players that is nothing more then a smoke screen lain down to sawy the less perceptive fans and media. It worked like a charm BTW.

The Central issues for the players are;

1. To remove linkage.

2. To stay at 57%.

The Central issues for the Owners are;

1. Maintain the current CBA's framework.

2. Reduce the amount of revenue the players receive.

This is the core of the dispute and everything else is just fluff.

The winning side will be very easy to see when all is said and done.

If the Cap is de-linked then the players have won. If the Cap is still 57% then the players have won.

If the Cap is still linked and the players get less then 57% then the owners have won.

I don't think the PA's offer is intended to be a short-term deal, but rather, it allows for an opt-out after the third year. If things are more or less satisfactory after 3 years, then they can continue on with the deal for a few more years. The 6 year deal ensures a fixed date for another labour dispute.

It would be nice to have a deal that could go 10 years, but is not set in stone if either side can't live with the arrangement.

That type of deal could lead to a longer period of labour peace if a new system is satisfactory enough.

tantalum wrote:Hey lucky for you the NHL has been quite vocal that revenue sharing is on the table!

The players are welcome to run their own league. That option has always been available to them. Problem is the economics just aren't attractive with how much they want to pay themselves. They are also welcome to go over the Europe and make low 6 figures instead of the 7 figures the NHL is offering up.

"The league is pushing for a longer-term agreement while the union favours a short one. Bettman also remains steadfast about the fact they must settle the financial framework before other topics are tackled. However, Fehr requested Friday that talks continue on secondary issues even with the main discussion now on hiatus."...

...The union is also pushing for greater revenue sharing to help out less financially sound teams — an issue Bettman called a "distraction" because he believes the sides aren't far apart on it." [TSN]

you can see the strategy from the NHL's point of view, they want the reduction of the player's share to drop to 46%, they want linkage to remain, they want the salary cap to be reduced and they will then talk about revenue sharing...

only when they get what they want they will reverse their position on revenue sharing stating it wont work and by then with the CBA 99% negotiated it will be almost impossible for the PA to do nought but sign and take another 6 years of an ass raping while Wirtz, Jacobs, MLSE, and MSG continue to post record profits and even the bottom feeder's real values continue to grow

+1 UK you are bang on. Bettman thinks he is still dealing with a weak PA and it looks like Fehr knows his stuff.

only when they get what they want they will reverse their position on revenue sharing stating it wont work and by then with the CBA 99% negotiated it will be almost impossible for the PA to do nought but sign and take another 6 years of an ass raping while Wirtz, Jacobs, MLSE, and MSG continue to post record profits and even the bottom feeder's real values continue to grow

I'm missing some thing here. I hate to be the Devils advocate but can any one explain why the Ontario Teachers Pension Fund wanted to get out of their holdings with MLSE when they were posting record profits ? MSG without it's TV channel ( which is the major profit centre ) is nothing and not long ago the Hawks were playing games to crowds of 9000 fans in a 20,000 fan arena. Prior to Chircelli ( sp Bruins GM ) the TD gardens was not filling out either.

I'm not suggesting that they are not making a profit but it's not all down to hockey and it's uncertain and high risk. And so they should make a profit, it might well attract more and better quality owners